Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Power United States

Large Scale 24/7 Solar Power Plant To Be Built in Nevada 475

Posted by Roblimo
from the let-the-sun-shine-in dept.
RayTomes writes "The Obama administration has provided a loan guarantee of $737 million to construct the first large-scale solar power plant that stores energy and provides electricity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week." This solar power project, a heliostat rather than a photovoltaic system, with a molten salt system to store power as heat for times when the sun isn't shining, will be constructed in Nevada and, says the article, is expected to create "600 construction jobs and 45 permanent positions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Large Scale 24/7 Solar Power Plant To Be Built in Nevada

Comments Filter:
  • They should totally name this the HELIOS One.

    • damn, beaten to the punchline. Think they know they'll need interior defenses to keep the ghouls and nightkin down?
  • by idji (984038)
    Las Vegas might become environmentally sustainable!
  • by mdsolar (1045926) on Tuesday May 24, 2011 @10:49AM (#36228030) Homepage Journal
    So the plant is suppose to produce 480,000 MWh per year which works out to an average capacity of 55 MW. So we get 0.8 permanent employees per MW. http://www.tonopahsolar.com/ [tonopahsolar.com]

    At slashdot's favorite nuclear power plant Vermont Yankee, there are more that 650 employees for a plant that does not manage to run at 620 MW all that well. Let's give them 80% up time. That is 1.3 employees per MW.

    Nuclear power seems less efficient than solar power by this measure. Maybe nuclear power is just a "make work" type jobs program which actually hurts the economy overall.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Alternatively, maybe human resources is not the largest expense of a power plant?

      I know, for computer programmers this is a hard attitude to get used to.

      • OK, let's compare the cost for production and transport of fuel. Solar: Zero. Nuclear: I don't know, but certainly larger than zero.

    • by llZENll (545605) on Tuesday May 24, 2011 @11:09AM (#36228234)

      Interesting metric. What probably counts more is the level of education required for those employees. My guess is in a heliostat most of the labor involved has to do with cleaning the mirrors, now you are talking an unskilled $10/hour job vs a nuclear plant tech that is making $50+/hour, even if there were 5 employees per MW in the solar plant it would still be better. Looking at raw employees per MW doesn't seem to be of much use. The much more important issues are rather obvious:

      1) no nuclear waste
      2) no nuclear fuel
      3) the worst that could happen is some molten salt all over the desert
      4) workers require less training and clearances
      5) the plant is much less of a terrorist target

      About the only downsides are cost and land space, since in the USA we have an abundance of both (compared to every other industrialized nation) we should be building these things all over the place, even in not so sunny places. Since no body wants to cut the defense budget (which is massively overinflated and a waste IMO) we should have the army start building and running these.

      • Heliostat efficiency is strongly affected by clouds so this type of plant is much much better in the desert. Not to worry about storage for solar PV though. Electrification of transportation produces a lot of cast off but still useful batteries. About half a day of our electric energy consumption can be stored in old batteries once transportation is converted.
      • by geekoid (135745)

        nuclear waste is a tiny issue with modern plants.
        No event that has cause an issue in the history of nuclear power can happen with modern plans built for modern nuclear power generation. 4th gen plants, for example.

        And yes. we should be building solar plants as well. I would love to see the government build a massive solar plant to power a city at cost. Open it up and use it as a learning facility. Someplace the private sector can see working power generation, and built from the designs.

        And when I say massiv

    • by JSBiff (87824) on Tuesday May 24, 2011 @11:19AM (#36228366) Journal

      What planet are you from? 80%? Complete fiction. Vermont Yankee is very reliable, and had, from 2003-2009, an amazing 92.6% capacity factor. Which gives an employee/Mwatt ratio closer to 1.09, which while still slightly higher than the solar plant, isn't particularly bad.

      The source for my claim [meredithangwin.com] is an open letter from an Entergy executive, being mirrored at the website of Meredith Angwin, who runs the Yes, Vermont Yankee blog.

      For more actual *facts* about VY reliability, see this posting [blogspot.com] at Yes, VY.

      In general, nuclear power plants in the U.S. have had an *industry average* of over 90%. That's not a cherry picked record for an individual plant - that's the *average* capacity factor. There are certainly some things to be worried about Nuclear plants, in terms of risks and costs, but reliability just isn't one of them. Let's stick to real problems, instead of making up fake ones.

      As for number of employees per MW at nuclear plants, there is probably room for improvement there, with newer designs. However, I don't see that 650 employees for 620MW seems like a particularly *bad* ratio. As mentioned above, it's less than 1.09 empl./MW, so it's in the same general ballpark as the solar plant.

    • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Tuesday May 24, 2011 @11:39AM (#36228594)
      Because employees per megawatt is the best way to measure the efficiency of a power plant right? You're also comparing the theoretical operating capacity of a brand new system that hasn't even been built yet to the actual operating capacity of a 40 year old system with one of the worst track records in the country. The one thing most likely to ensure our dependence on fossil fuels for years to come is the political agenda of people like you. You should be fighting for new nuclear power plants to replace coal. You should be demanding the upgrade of 40 year old plants to modern, meltdown proof, designs. You should be demanding we build plants that USE spent fuel rather than dispose of it and you should submit to a 5% fuel/electricity tax that will be used to fund research in orbital solar arrays, the only real solar option that will work. Instead, your one track minded hatred of anything "nuclear" is likely to doom us all.
  • by omems (1869410) on Tuesday May 24, 2011 @10:51AM (#36228056)
    I 'm not certain about the numbers involved, but I'm happy to see the government doing what I believe it should: promoting things that are good for us that we wouldn't otherwise get. By that I mean buffering the long-term payoff on things that cost too much for the market to provide now.
  • Don't let the NCR take hold it
  • Wrong approach (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WindBourne (631190) on Tuesday May 24, 2011 @11:11AM (#36228258) Journal
    This will use a combined solar thermal collector/salt storage, powering a thermal engine. Not a problem. However, what that does is use the solar thermal to heat the storage and then power it all nightlong. So, for example, if you want a 100 MW output 24x7, you will need 300-400 MW tower (a lot more money). Not an issue. BUT, the storage is what is important. It would be better for the companies going into this, to split out the storage portion and make it distributed. In particular, America has a large number of OLD coal-based power plants that are going to go away over the next 20-30 years. Many of these are currently inside of cities. They are typically 50-100 MW in size (which was large monsters in the day). They have power lines that emanate from them. They also have cooling plants (typically, water), combined with steam engines/generators. But all that is really needed to be changed is that piping re-upped, and the coal boiler dropped. Instead, put in a high temp salt storage system, and use electricity to bring the temp up. With this approach, you can have a large CHEAP battery. The argument against it will be the inefficiency of it. There will be a loss of energy of roughly 50%. However, current tech with CASE, Hydro, batteries, etc. all have losses of 20-40% or so, but have many drawbacks. Hydro and Case can only be used in certain areas and are expensive. Batteries are VERY expensive to install, though they have the advantage of going anywhere.

    In the end, the question should not be how efficient it is, but how economical it is. A thermal storage that has little costs to set-up, but will last for 20-30 years (within 10-15 years, ultra-caps will become the dominant form of new storage, and would then replace this). That approach extends this equipment for very little costs. More importantly, it would enable ALL FORMS of Alternative Energy to provide power as they can, since the salt storage would act as a buffer for demand systems. Right now, America loses something like 12 GW yearly because they have to feather wind generators at night. Likewise, we have gas turbine generator that are built to handle the demand, esp. when AE falls. With a thermal storage, it provide our demand system, while allowing AE to run at full power.
  • The Wikipedia states the Benefits of Thorium [wikipedia.org]

    " A 2005 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency discusses potential benefits along with the challenges of thorium reactors.[23] According to Australian science writer Tim Dean, "thorium promises what uranium never delivered: abundant, safe and clean energy â" and a way to burn up old radioactive waste."

    You Have to blame the Japanese government and power plant management for not replacing the Fukushima power reactors. We simply can not expect sol

  • Funny. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheCabal (215908) on Tuesday May 24, 2011 @11:36AM (#36228556) Journal

    I remember reading about plants like this on Slashdot a while ago. A lot of people said that was a good idea, and we should start building them!

    Well now that we're actually doing it, suddenly it's a bad idea. Why is that?

If you had better tools, you could more effectively demonstrate your total incompetence.

Working...